New 192.168.x.x subnet option for MH firewalls

[CleggGP]

Eight of the ports are PoE on the 16-port switch. Larger Cisco PoE switches can be very expensive. In some MHs people have deployed consumer-grade (slow speed) switches that may actually bottleneck network traffic. Faster speed commercial grade switches are recommended in MHs.

The firewall configuration upgrade provides faster data throughput. Previously the max was 20 Mbps throughput on the 881W firewall, but throughput is much higher with the new configuration (provided you have fast ISP speed). Of course the network cannot run any faster than the ISP speed.

[drepouille]

I wanted to increase our cablemodem's speed by contacting Cox and requesting an upgrade. However, our FM said all meetinghouses had to comply with a "meetinghouse standard" internet speed, and we couldn't have meetinghouses with cablemodems running at higher speeds than those with DSL modems.

[Mikerowaved]

Previously the max was 20 Mbps throughput on the 881W firewall...

That's not been my experience. The 881W's in our 3 buildings (older style with ext. antennas) consistently clock in at 48 to 50 Mbs up and down using speedtest.net. When it's available to me, I'll be updating the firmware and report if it affects those numbers at all, although I'm more interested in getting a larger IP pool in a single segment than squeezing a bit more speed out.

[Mikerowaved]

I wanted to increase our cablemodem's speed by contacting Cox and requesting an upgrade. However, our FM said all meetinghouses had to comply with a "meetinghouse standard" internet speed, and we couldn't have meetinghouses with cablemodems running at higher speeds than those with DSL modems.

Never heard of this. I'm not saying it's incorrect, just it's not been my experience dealing with our FM folks. Yes, cost of service is an important factor, but normalizing on throughput just doesn't make sense to me. (Sometimes I wish we had a copy of their playbook so we knew what the actual rules were.)

[russellhltn]

Never heard of this. I'm not saying it's incorrect, just it's not been my experience dealing with our FM folks.

Thankfully my FM group hasn't either - or at least they're ignoring it. I've got 3Mbit DSL at some buildings and 20Mbit cable at others.


I just hope none of them read the Internet Bandwidth Guide

Sometimes I wish we had a copy of their playbook so we knew what the actual rules were.

That's my biggest complaint.

[Biggles]

Never heard of this. I'm not saying it's incorrect, just it's not been my experience dealing with our FM folks.

Thankfully my FM group hasn't either - or at least they're ignoring it. I've got 3Mbit DSL at some buildings and 20Mbit cable at others.


I just hope none of them read the Internet Bandwidth Guide

Sometimes I wish we had a copy of their playbook so we knew what the actual rules were.

That's my biggest complaint.

It might be, like our FMG, that because of budget constraints they aren't willing to look at something that might cost them more, as if they do it for one they will have to do it for all!

[harddrive]

Eight of the ports are PoE on the 16-port switch. Larger Cisco PoE switches can be very expensive. In some MHs people have deployed consumer-grade (slow speed) switches that may actually bottleneck network traffic. Faster speed commercial grade switches are recommended in MHs.

This is really news to me, because every time my FM group showed me the switch they could purchase, I did not see anywhere that it said it had POE on it. I would like to see the specs on the one you are talking about and that is available to the FM group, because if that was the case, I wouldn't have purchased the NetGear switches I have with PoE built in.

Also the switch was like $60, which tells me that it doesn't have PoE.

Thanks

[CleggGP]

The switch is the Cisco model SF100D-16P (16-Port 10/100 PoE Desktop Switch).

[harddrive]

Ok CleggGP, this must have come out after I put in my systems a few years ago. I'm wondering if a notice was sent to the forums about this upgrade or not. If it was, I never got an email indicating that any of the forums that I watch had an update. It has been that way for a long time. I don't come to this group each day or week because I just don't do it.

Now onto the PoE switch. I looked on-line and the power injector for the 1041n's are street price of about $90 a piece. The SF300-24P switch street prices is about $400, so if we do the math, we put 4 104n with a power injector the price comes out to be $360 and for about $40 more, I could get an SF300-24P PoE switch. This means that I would get 20 ports of PoE for $40 or $2 a port where the other ports are $90 a piece. So in reality the cost effect of a PoE switch is much better in my book than having stacks and stacks of power injectors, especially if at any time you want to go to Cisco IP phones at the buildings.

Plus it keeps everything much cleaner.
Terry

[russellhltn]

On the plus side, if you use the power injectors you can put them all on one strip and you have a single switch to turn off the WAPs for a streaming conference.

We've been told that we'll have that function in TM, but it hasn't happened yet.